[Ben Hunt]

Hey everyone,

I've got the DA 16-45 and i love and adore it. Nice and sharp, well built and solid, quick shift, no HSM issues :P but one thing is bugging me about it and that is sometimes an f2.8 would be nice.

currently i'm looking at getting the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 but i'm not sure if it's going to be a worthy upgrade. I would like a 2.8 for low light but i don't want to double up on lense and it would be verry had for me to part with my DA 16-45.

perhaps someone out there can shed some light on this for me (no pun intended)

Should i grab a 2.8, keep the DA or look for something else?

thanks in advance for all your help!

Have a good one!!

[jct us101]

You're not going to really notice anything depending on what kind of photography you do. I'm curious though to which version of the 17-50mm you're looking for. There's the old version (I don't think that has an HSM type motor) and there's the new VC version (which might). Otherwise, it's basically just trading lenses and getting an extra stop of light for an extra $100 or so.

[phzy2003]

if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.

[systemA]

Dp you find yourself using the quickshift at all? If yes, I'd keep the 16-45mm. Perhaps you would be interested in trying out a fast prime lens (the FA50/1.4 for instance)?

[Ben Hunt]

Dp you find yourself using the quickshift at all? If yes, I'd keep the 16-45mm. Perhaps you would be interested in trying out a fast prime lens (the FA50/1.4 for instance)?

Yea i do find myself using the quick shift alot, my next thought was to fill the void with some fast primes, like the FA 50mm f1.7 or 40mm 2.8 Limited

[fractal]

There is a fair amount of difference in speed between F4 & F2.8. The Pentax equivalent is huge and heavy.

I'm hoping to get this lens very soon.

Find reviews here:

FM Reviews - AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

[deadwolfbones]

It's my everyday do-everything lens. Love it to death.

[ajuett]

As people have mentioned, if you need the f/2.8 speed, yes, by all means get it. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an excellent lens. If I needed that range and speed that would be the lens I'd go for.

[jct us101]

if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.

That's odd, I've never heard of the 17-50mm giving a yellowish tinge. Well I guess maybe a little bit, but do you have any examples of it really being a problem? I still would prefer the 16-45mm, but I am curious about this.

[Ben Hunt]

That's odd, I've never heard of the 17-50mm giving a yellowish tinge. Well I guess maybe a little bit, but do you have any examples of it really being a problem? I still would prefer the 16-45mm, but I am curious about this.

Same here, very curious about this too

[systemA]

Only one solution...different days, different lenses

[Pentaxie]

Like many fellow friends mentioned here, if you need the f2.8 for low light activity, go for it. Otherwise save your money and stick with the 16-45.

Cheers.

[Andi Lo]

For lowlight, another option is to get a k-x. it's almost a two stop improvement from K20d. When you need even more speed, get a prime.

Just another thought to consider Of course the 17-50/2.8 is a great lens, but as you said, you'd prefer not to double up.

And DA colors is very different from Tamron colors. I still find DA colors nicer but tamron colors are not bad at all...

[Jewelltrail]

phzy2003: if you really need that 2.8 , go for it. but if you don't, then just keep the 1645, the 17-50 makes the image yellow.

I have shot thousands of images with my Tamron 17-50; no idea what you mean by a "yellow image." You need to explain this one a little more--perhaps post some images for us.

For a lens in this range (17-50) and at this speed (f 2.8) it would be tough to beat the Tamron--just an amazing lens. Sure, colors differ from lens to lens a bit, tailoring colors in PPing is a simple thing.

[ohyouloveme]

i am about to take the plunge, and buy the tamron 17-50 f2.8. this thread greatly boosts my confidence in it.

for a wide angle fast shot, i can't seem to find anything better. there doesnt seem to be anything faster at 17mm than f2.8, is there?